September 17, 2012

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.

And then he says he can't "worry about those people" as he tries to win votes, because they will never be convinced. He's not saying he doesn't care about them as citizens and human beings, just that he won't devote any attention to trying to cull some of their votes.

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said. "And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Obama made a problematic judgment call in trying to explain working class culture to a much wealthier audience. He described blue collar Pennsylvanians with a series of what in the eyes of Californians might be considered pure negatives: guns, clinging to religion, antipathy, xenophobia.

The thing is, he's wrong. What about the POOR Republicans? There ARE poor Republicans, aren't there? I know there are some in the southeast. They were hit hard by Katrina, for example. Now, they may not consider themselves victims (what a not kind thing to say by Romney, he has no idea), but they make very little, pay no income tax and vote Republican.

What I noticed about liberals of age who should know better is that they derive their sense of helping people byadvo advocating for more programs and taxes. They won't otherwise lift a finger to help the poor with their own time and money but since they "are concerned" then they did their fair share

I really think that, as the Professor points out, if you were going to vote for Romney, this isn't going to give you any more heartburn than Obama's "bitter clingers" gave Obama voters.

There may be a few undecided voters who are going to work out the Venn logic and figure out that they're in a category to be pissed off about, but I doubt it.

And, janmaxwell, if you think unionized public servants like teachers, firemen, police officers, etc are somewhere high on the list of Republican voters favorite people, you need to read more right wing blogs & mags. That's about 25 years out of date. Yes, even the cops.

We lost six jets in Afghanistan over the weekend in addition to two Marines. A reasonable headline would be "US Suffers Worst Single Day Aircraft Losses Since Vietnam War". Now if anyone has seen that headline today, please let me know. I would think that would be something of an issue, but perhaps Mitt Romney did something more important for people to know about.

If you are not a net tax payer, and don't contribute in some other way equally, then NO, you are not taking responsibility for your life which includes contributing to the cost of government. You can't be using other people's money to cover your responsibilities and claim otherwise. On top of that, if you are an Obama voter, you are responsible for the malaise we are in right now. This recession should have been over 2 years ago like any other. You hired a completely unqualified inexperienced person with silly outdated and failed ideas. Take responsibility. Or continue to be a drain by wasting our time attacking some other guy who isn't even in office. You are the problem.

Yawn, another non story about what Romney said that was true. I have to rank this with the "I like to be able to fire people" comment taken out of context. Once I see it all I'm all "so what? Yeah he's not going to get the moocher vote"

My point is that the fact huff post ran it was not just because it was news, but that someone else would gain politically from it (not McCain , think of someone more liberal and of the female persuasion)

Shiloh thinks honesty should somehow be replaced with telling lies. So instead of applauding Romney for his honesty, instead you get feigned horror at comments that describe and electorate, 47% or so, that doesn't pay federal income taxes, many of which are received SS and Medicare, others double dipping into SDI and Unemployment insurance. Are they going to vote for him no matter what he says to them. We are the suckers paying for these people. He's talking to the 53%'ers out there that are doing most of the heavy lifting.

Shiloh, no one is stopping your from giving more of your after tax income to these people. He's being fairly specific that his campaign and its money would be dropping that money into an empty hole that can never get filled or have a meaningful ROI.

I am genuinely surprised how poorly Romney's campaign is performing. The weak convention, the recent gaff-a-day and the reports of infighting are not what I predicted. This chaos is going to hurt Romney's chances. Much of his argument for election revolves around his attempt to show that he has greater executive experience and skills than Obama. Yet, in comparing both man's initial presidential campaigns, Obama has performed notably better.

I still think this election is Romney's to lose but he is making the inherently weak position of Obama look much better.

And then he says he can't "worry about those people" as he tries to win votes, because they will never be convinced. He's not saying he doesn't care about them as citizens and human beings, just that he won't devote any attention to trying to cull some of their votes.

This is blatantly dishonest pro-Romney spin. The sentences that follow the quote Althouse excerpted is "[M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." That's almost half the population of the country that he's dismissing as irredeemably irresponsible and careless. A noble sentiment for a would-be president! You, Althouse, ask us to compare his comments to Obama's infamous "bitter clingers." The main difference I see is that Obama never says "I can't reach those people, and I'll never even try."

The main difference I see is that Obama never says "I can't reach those people, and I'll never even try."

He doesn't have to since his economic policies have put many of them there to begin with. Unemployment is still ridiculously high, and that's not even from the job participation numbers, not to mention the levels of increase in food stamp entrants into the system. Romney isn't the POTUS. His policies haven't done this, but Urkel's has. See the difference or am I just wasting my time, like Romney has said.

Ah yes the concern trolls are out in force "I'm surprised how badly the Romney campaign is doing blah, blah boolshit, TPM talking point, sadly shaking head" Yeah, yeah I'm sure you are. Wall street will be tanking in a few weeks and we will be talking about how quickly we can get President Romney to take over.

Obama administration is negotiating with Egypt to transfer the Blind Sheikh there...just what the mobs were rioting for. You know the Blind Sheikh--serving a life sentence in the US for masterminding the World Trade Center bombings?

A fair number of those 47% that Romney alluded to will vote Republican and an even larger number of them will not bother voting.....On the face of it, his statement is incorrect. He was probably just telling his audience what they want to hear. It doesn't sound so bad but give the Democrats a week to masticate it, digest it, and pass it through the colon and this remark will be as noisome as Marie Antoinette's reference to the price of bread.

Romney's statement makes too much of a mish-mash of various income states and attitudes. His central point in identifying with his audience was that there should not be an open ended entitlement expectation. What the liberals see in the conservatives as mean however is just, on the 'conservative' side generally, that there should be a limit. In our history of the progressive state, one part of the edifice is something that, I think, is being missed by the conservative side as reflected in these remarks. In the VA, thee is something called Veterans Industries. This is a shop which gets contracted assembly jobs. Because it is for the disabled, they are allowed to pay very little, a dollar an hour?, but there were a surprising number of people who wanted the jobs. It seems minimum wage is putting people who are not sufficiently productive at higher paying work out of work.

But really, we can't concern ourselves with those 8%. Because like another 39% of the population, they are people "who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it."

The problem with this is that a lot of the 47% are not Obama supporters either. Just like all the rich aren't in Romeny's corner. Some of those who are not well off plan on fixing that eventually, and would be willing to pay some tax, but politicians keep trying to buy them off. They at least have some moral footing - they aren't supporting higher taxes on other people, just because they unfairly benefit from them. They would rather benefit from a stronger economy and the self-supporting jobs that creates.

If he says he hates campaigning in the south because the people are so low class it would be big but this isn't big.

Also, fags definitely don't rely on government, unless they are grossies and they don't count. All my fag friends are wealthy, have amazing jobs and SHOP! We tend to be rich, educated and successful. I don't want or need the government for anything.

Janmaxwell, another lefty newcomer, shows up in the nick of time to provide some balance to right-thinking blog but who--curiously--already sounds so familar (edbutcher?) and even attracts the same admirers.

Romney's statement is just innacurate. Although he is correct that 47% will not vote against Obama, it's not becuase all of them are moochers. Streisand isn't a moocher, Springsteen isn't a moocher, 95% blacks aren't moochers. Some of that 47% are just stupid, or racist. I think that actually covers most of them, regardless of income.

Oh yeah we are in for a hair cut libtard. I just hope the whole ship doesn't go under. I won't disclose proprietary information but there is a nasty surpise coming in a few weeks on the heals of this QE3 fiasco. Wish it weren't so, but is coming. And president short pants will be packing. (PS. He knows too)

But, the issue is of grave importance. How can our nation survive when more and more people every year become dependent on the government. The amount of dependency increase under Obama is a disaster. Dems want dependency so they can stay in power, but dependency will mean even more poverty for those on the dole.

I hope this statement brings up this discussion. We cannot go on like this - where more people in a month sign ip for Social Security Disability than get a job. It is a disaster.

gk1 said...I just hope the whole ship doesn't go under. I won't disclose proprietary information but there is a nasty surpise coming in a few weeks on the heals of this QE3 fiasco. Wish it weren't so, but is coming.

"Much of his argument for election revolves around his attempt to show that he has greater executive experience and skills than Obama. Yet, in comparing both man's initial presidential campaigns, Obama has performed notably better."_______________Nothing Romney has done in has campaign compares with the disasterious leadership Obama has brought on this country. $5 trillion in Debt. 47 million on food stamps. 48 straight months of 8%+ unemployment. Doubling of gas prices. loss of $5000 per year for middle class families. Total disaster in the middle east with the take over of Libya and Egypt by terrorists.

What's offensive is the notion that everyone who is for Obama is dependent on government, a victim, etc. while everyone who is for Romney is free standing, doesn't rely on subsidies, etc. Empirically that's just baloney. In particular, many red states are major consumers of government subsidies and get more in federal expenditures than they contribute in tax revenues.

And how about the statement that he would be doing better if his parents were Latino? What if the shoe were on the other foot and Obama said he would be doing better if his dad had been white?

"So, Romney has no intention of appealing to the 47 % of us he regards as parasites. That's a whole new way of campaigning for president. Good luck with that."

47% - the amount of partisan support for Obama - believe in the dependency nation. They believe that government should provide for people rather than people providing for themselves. Some of those people are dependents themselves, some are those who just want socialism. Romney should not expect to get their vote because Romney wants a nation of self worth, not a nation of dependency

The other big theme on both Rachel Maddow's and Lawrence O'Donnell's shows was how funny it all is. Those conservatives are really funny, because they're losing like tricycle-riders in a dragster race, and they don't know it. So funny!

I consider Obama's victory a possibility. These people on MSNBC don't seem to consider Obama's defeat a possibility. Surprise!

Sloanasaurus said...Nothing Romney has done in has campaign compares with the disasterious leadership Obama has brought on this country. $5 trillion in Debt. 47 million on food stamps. 48 straight months of 8%+ unemployment. Doubling of gas prices. loss of $5000 per year for middle class families. Total disaster in the middle east with the take over of Libya and Egypt by terrorists.

But, hey, apparently Obama has a well managed campaign....please.

Just making an apples to apples comparison. Given his poor performance on a relatively simple task, at least compared to the Presidency, it is not unreasonable to believe that Romney would have performed even more poorly than Obama as president.

One other thing: both Maddow and O'Donnell are pushing the notion that early, absentee, vote-by-mail voting is a big help for Obama, and a big hurt for Romney. Maddow did a long segment on how voting has already started in some places, including Ohio. They're voting now, and they will vote for Obama, of course, you silly conservatives!

Would that include the firefighters and police officers whom you rely on?

How about the people who teach your kids?

How about the parents who hold down two jobs so they can give their kids a better life? You want to tell them they don't take personal responsibility?

How about the soldiers who are under attack in Afghanistan? They don't accept personal responsibility?????

This is the line that is absolutely going to kill him. Believe me, the ad is being written right now featuring people just like the ones I listed.______________________

No it won't because those people who don't support Obama (cops and firefighters) know what Romney was talking about. They know that Obama is seeding a dependency nation, that is slowly churning to a point of no return where a majority of voters are dependent on government, and more importantly, on the outcome of an election.

Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.

"This is blatantly dishonest pro-Romney spin. The sentences that follow the quote Althouse excerpted is "[M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

I just listened to it. Didn't hear that. I will listen again.

Okay, it's there. But in context is exactly what Althouse said it was. Which is why I didn't hear it, because he was always talking about who was potentially willing to vote for him and not about, EVER, not worrying about people as *people*.

Not that taking that bit out that sounds as bad as possible is anything like *dishonest anti-Romney spin*, not at all.

Synova said...I suppose that your point is that black soldiers will vote for Obama exclusively, as black people in general are expected to do?

No. I have recently had a lot of contact with veterans and I was surprised to find what a racially mixed group they were and what a range of politics views were represented. The common image of the military as rock-ribbed republicans does not reflect reality, at least in my neck of the woods.

AReasonableFacsimileofaHuman wrote...Are you familiar with todays military? It looks more like the Bronx than Manhattan.

I've given you the benefit of the doubt up to now, despite your screen name. But the fact that you think this constitutes a coherent reply to my question about data on blacks' and whites' voting patterns in the military demonstrates to my satisfaction that you're not capable of thought.

One established fact is that the military vote is overwhelmingly conservative, which is why the Dems go to such lengths to suppress it. So the entire premise of your comment is faulty, not just its logic.

Just making an apples to apples comparison. Given his poor performance on a relatively simple task, at least compared to the Presidency, it is not unreasonable to believe that Romney would have performed even more poorly than Obama as president.

Obama's dislike of business has caused the greatest harm to America. IN most recessions business sheds the workers they empoloy to help their business expand. IN most recoveries these workers are rehired as a positive view of the future returns. But, that has not happened this time. Most of that sour view of the future is due to Obama. His outright hatred of private business is the number one reason. After that its all his anti-business policies: Obamacare, the EPA, burdensome regulation, constant rhetoric about higher taxes, endless deficits, money printing, and endless uncertainty. Obama apparently cares a lot about the worker, but doesn't give a rip for people who create jobs. That is why no jobs are being created, and why the economy will continue in the crapper if Obama remains in office.

A Romney or McCain would have taken a more balanced approach to the recovery, and not just favored workers over business. Right now most businesses do not have a positive vision of the future and have not held such a view since the Stimulus was passed. Obamacare double-downed on anti0business and since then it has been hate business, hate business, hate business ever since

Although it's explainable, this IS a gaffe in the silly world of class warfare and politics, but it's still just one. Obama is way ahead on the gaffes so far. We just forget how many there have been. Just Google it - this is nothing by comparison, but Obama needs this gaffe to to make him look like he's not a whole lot dumber than Romney, which he is. No success running anything, ever.

"The common image of the military as rock-ribbed republicans does not reflect reality, at least in my neck of the woods."

The only numbers I've ever heard was about a 75%/25% split, but I don't know how that was determined. Mostly the military discourages a partisan political mindset *at all* no matter how much they push voting overseas. Most military people I've ever met are pretty much apolitical, no matter what they'd be if you *asked* them.

And that seems right to me.

Still, as much as it baffled some people that anyone in the military would vote for Bush in 2004, I'd say that's got to be double plus for Obama in 2008. I was actually sort of surprised to hear that it was Marines complaining that the Embassy in Cairo didn't issue their Marine guards ammunition. I'm not surprised if it's true, because as a normal policy is probably is true. I was shocked that it would be discussed openly. That seemed a departure from the no-politics military "normal" that I expect.

It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant the left is about the military, who serves, what part of the country they come from. I've been to many bases in the states and overseas and they are an awesome sight to see. And I can also confidently tell you they HATE the current POTUS, yeah even the african american ones. Deal with it bitches. They know a slacker who can't hack it when they see one. Did you check out obama's speech in Fort Bliss a few weeks ago? You could hear tumble weeds rumbling across the hangar it was so quiet during his "applause lines". Trust me he won't be on any more bases unless he can have more plants up front. They HATE him.

Continued...These tax cuts for the poor were partly in order to make further tax cuts for the rich political palatable. But now that fewer people pay income taxes as a result of GOP policies, they’re being called lazy and dependent. And thus the GOP's tax cuts are being used to make a case that the rich are overtaxed and that the less-rich are becoming dependent. Which leads to a policy agenda of tax cuts for the rich and cuts to social services for the non-rich. EK

Chip -- Ask Reasonable about the beautiful architecture of "Europe" and why the United States ought to be like Europe. Because of the architecture, see, and because the United States had a civil war, unlike any country in Europe since 1861.

This person's lack of understanding about the world is both disgusting and frightening.

It's true that Republicans share a lot of the blame for this unfair skewing of the tax burden over the years. I just find it reprehensible and immoral for so many people to not be paying taxes. How can we consider ourselves all in this together and united under such a system?

I think that nearly everyone should pay some tax. I would like it to be a minimum of 10%. I don't care if you are homeless, and panhandle $20 bucks a day. You should give $2 to the government. Maybe that should be in sales tax, but everyone needs to contribute something if they want to enjoy the trappings of our society. A person needs that to give them dignity, and worth. Everyone should be able to tell politicians and cops: "Listen up. I'm a god-damned tax payer! I pay your salary!"

Gas prices are one of Obama's biggest failures. It's doubled in just four years. That is outrageous. The average person uses 750 gallons of gas year. But this amount is far higher for people living in places like MInnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida than people in New York and New Jersey.

Under Obama that average person is now spending an additional $1500 a year alone on gas. What a total waste. Most of this is caused by Obama's no drilling policies and his excessive speding and debt.

janmaxwell: "edutcher," not "edbutcher." Assuming that was a typo rather than snark.

shiloh, meanwhile, thinks it's amusing to call Romney "Willard." No doubt he spent the 2008 campaign saying "Barry Hussein Obama," and most of the 90s referring to William Jefferson Clinton, and for that matter never referred to "Jimmy Carter," only to "James Earl Carter, Jr." Had he been around ca. 1912, He would have made a point of calling the Democratic Presidential candidate "Thomas."

It is entertaining, though, to find someone who thinks "Willard" is a sillier name for a President than "Mitt."

"Except that it is the organizational aspects that seem to be so fucked up in Romney's campaign. Both the set pieces, like the convention, and the rapid responses lack a lot in terms of execution."

What was wrong with the convention? And was Romney in charge of it? I don't think he was.

What "rapid responses" were so bad? Not, could they be spun bad, but were bad?

Is anything Romney has done in his campaign as bad as Obama's lack of response to the recent unrest, his trip to Vegas, his failure to appear serious about violent outbreaks in the middle east, finding out that he'd rather not listen to someone give an intelligence briefing and we're supposed to trust that he read it all in secret? How about rumors that the Blind Shiek might be sent to Egypt?

Romney's "gaffe" is going to be the biggest story of the next few days.

Do you think that has some relation to actual reality?

In TRUTH nothing Romney has done *combined* approaches the explanation by Obama that Egypt is not our Ally followed by the explanation that Obama's staff hadn't prepared that statement for him because the question was not anticipated.

But this will be the biggest news in the whole wide world for the next couple of days.

"So what's the upshot? "My job is not to worry about those people," he says. He also notes, describing President Obama's base, "These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax."

This is an utter disaster for Romney.

Romney already has trouble relating to the public and convincing people he cares about them. Now, he's been caught on video saying that nearly half the country consists of hopeless losers.

Romney has been vigorously denying President Obama's claims that his tax plan would raise taxes on the middle class. Now, he's been caught on video suggesting that low- and middle-income Americans are undertaxed.

(That one is especially problematic given the speculation about what's on Mitt's unreleased pre-2010 tax returns.)"

"Presidential campaigns wallow so tediously in pseudo-events and manufactured outrage that our senses can be numbed to the appearance of something genuinely momentous. Mitt Romney’s secretly recorded comments at a fundraiser are such an event – they reveal something vital about Romney, and they disqualify his claim to the presidency.

Sloanasaurus said...Gas prices are one of Obama's biggest failures. It's doubled in just four years. That is outrageous. The average person uses 750 gallons of gas year. But this amount is far higher for people living in places like MInnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida than people in New York and New Jersey.

Let's analyze why gas prices were so low when Obama was elected. Oh, I remember, we were in the middle of fucking global financial crisis and recession. Supply and demand, brother, supply and demand.

In the campaign, Obama has been doing little else but responding to the Romney message. Romney has been out in front of almost everything. The campaign is not Romney's problem, the density of Obama voters is. Mitt loves them all, but the slow kids take a lot more time, and some just can't learn at all, especially with the press telling them it's cool to be stupid. Time will tell if he can get through to them.

Romney already has trouble relating to the public and convincing people he cares about them. Now, he's been caught on video saying that nearly half the country consists of hopeless losers.

Romney has been vigorously denying President Obama's claims that his tax plan would raise taxes on the middle class. Now, he's been caught on video suggesting that low- and middle-income Americans are undertaxed.

THis is such a lie. Romney is not against 47% of the people who are dependent on government. He said that 47% of the people who support Obama believe in dependency on government. The fact is that democrats want more people to be dependent on government - Romney is not going to get their votes.

I thought that what was interesting about what Romney said was that because 47% pay no income tax he can't get anywhere with talking about tax breaks for the middle class, that all people hear is more tax breaks for the rich because that's what the Democrats will claim he's saying. People who don't pay income taxes don't care about lower tax rates for the middle class.

That was an interesting point. Anyone who is paying income tax is, conceptually, the "rich".

What does it matter how long it took him to plug the hole or how he couldn't manage to grease the wheels for oil clean up that wasn't completely perfect because it only got 98% of the oil out of the water. What does it matter that he got to say angry things about kicking ass?

The oil rigs up and left and people are still out of work. And he's still complicit in blocking the Keystone pipeline.

You people love him, and I have to wonder why. Is it just knee jerk you have to love whatever a conservative doesn't? Do you really decide what is right in your world by first assessing ME?

Sloanasaurus said...Let's analyze why gas prices were so low when Obama was elected. Oh, I remember, we were in the middle of fucking global financial crisis and recession. Supply and demand, brother, supply and demand.

Wait, isn't that also true of the stock market?

It's about time someone pointed that out. I've been sitting here wondering whether only the slow kids turned up for schooling today.

Ho-hum. Yet another silly distraction. I hestitate to draw the attention of the smug lefties to this, as I think it's advantageous to our side to encourage their complacency, but DaTechGuy has taken a good look at the GOP/Dem registration numbers since 2004 and noticed something rather interesting: "At no time during the year (2012) do the Democrats have a registration advantage vs republicans, the gap closes in July & re-separates in August. The low point for the GOP was July for 34.9 and the high August at 37.6 For democrats the high was 34.0 in June & July the low was 32.4 in Feb "The Democrats won 2 election in this period 2006 & 2008 with a 6.9 advantage in 2006 & a 7.6 advantage in 2008. There is no example of the Democrats winning since 2004 with an advantage less that 6.9. The GOP won two elections in this period 2004 with a -1.6 disadvantage & 2010 with a 1.3 advantage. This means the GOP has proven it can win with not only a small lead but with an actual disadvantage. Additionally with an advantage of only 1.3 they pulled off the biggest house swing in my lifetime. I’ve covered a lot of national polls on this site over the last year and all those polls ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX have one thing in common. Not a single one of those polls had a sample with a GOP advantage." http://datechguyblog.com/2012/09/17/demoralized-as-hell-the-poll-the-media-isnt-talking-about-edition/ Am I positive R/R will win? No, since I am not a leftist, I don't go in for premature gloating. But I'm certainly sure that Obama is far from having it in the bag.

Synova said...Can Obama do anything wrong? Can I even get someone to say that a sitting President saying in an interview that an ally isn't actually an *ally* might, perhaps count as a gaffe?

I often think Obama has made mistakes, however, this particular statement struck me as pretty shrewd. The US has a lot of leverage over Egypt, They need us a lot more than we need them. They seemed to get the message.

I thought Obama made a mistake expanding the war in Afghanistan. Since it seems to have lead to the much delayed killing of Osama I would give him a pass on this. I thought Obama made a mistake allowing Nancy Pelosi and the house Democrats such a large say in the passage of health care reform. This decision was saved by the Supreme court, but that was just dumb luck. I think he made a serious mistake in not breaking up the banks. No too big to fail meltdowns so far, but it's just a matter of time. I think the failure to aggressively prosecute the Wall Street executives at the center of the bank failures was a political mistake, although probably the right thing to do economically.

What's wrong with that? You mean aside from the obvious fact that not everyone who pays no federal income taxes is a hard core Democrat? Or that the federal tax/no-tax divide is not static -- it's not the same people every year who have or do not have a net federal income tax burden -- so that Romney's characterization of the 47% actually applies to most Americans?

Well, according to a Tax Policy Center report last year, about 2/3 of that 47% actually have income of between $10,000 and $75,000 per year.

About 1/5 of that 47% are elderly whose tax burden is reduced to zero because of tax credits for the elderly.

About 15% of that 47% owe no federal income taxes because of tax credits for children and the working poor.

About 2.5% of that 47% owe no federal income taxes because of itemized deductions. About 2.8% of that 47% owe no federal income taxes because of education credits.

In fact, about 1.5% of that 47% actually have income of over $75,000 per year. Indeed, several hundreds of thousands of them have income in excess of $1 million per year.

That 47% who Romney dismisses as Obama voters "no matter what" is full of people who are raising children, who are working in low and middle income jobs, who are going to school, who are disabled, who are retired.

The vast majority of that 47% pay into the system this year and in past years with their Social Security taxes and unemployment, health, sales, state income and other taxes. It seems highly probable that most of them have paid federal taxes in past years.

But Romney's message for all those people is that they all are "dependent on government," that they all "believe that they are victims" who feel "entitled" to have the government "give" them everything, that none of them "take personal responsibility and care for their lives." That for that portion of the country, the only voting issue that matters is their sense of entitlement to government handouts paid for by the other half, including the very wealthiest for whom Romney so fervently wants to lower taxes.

Romney's portrayal of nearly half the nation strikes me as untrue, dismissive and insulting. Yet you say you see "nothing bad there at all." I'm at a loss to understand why.

" AReasonableMan said...Chip S. said...Seven, It's strange how these lovers of Europe and its splendors prefer to go through the major effort of transforming the US into its image rather than just moving there.

Oh, wait--they'd have to be able to find employment there to do that.

Back to hating on Europe, this snobs, with their overpriced currency and great architecture."

Says the man who knows nothing about it. Watch the Euro, if you know how.

Did you see the photo of the LA Times building that Chip S. linked? Whoever added that ugly blister should be punished. It is a crime against architecture. I just now spelled architecture right the first time for the first time in my life. I did it by thinking Archy tec ture, and just knowing the y isn't right.

Rosinerne, The real kicker here is that a large fraction of the 47% paying no net federal income tax are old people. They are predominantly Romney voters. It is hard to get much more tone deaf than this.

Well, no, I don't see anything bad in there at all, either. Neither would any person who has eyes to see and a brain to think see anything wrong in there.But the left is in denial. The left sees lots wrong in there because they bristle at the notion that Americans should live like Americans with personal responsibility and self reliance. This is Mother Jones. This is David Corn. They are lefties. They don't like the American idea.

Reasonable -- Tell us about how "Europe" hasn't had any civil wars since 1861, along with your stereotypes about elderly voters and your hilarious beliefs about Western European architecture that seem to have developed by looking at postcards.

Well, no, I don't see anything bad in there at all, either. Neither would any person who has eyes to see and a brain to think see anything wrong in there.But the left is in denial. The left sees lots wrong in there because they bristle at the notion that Americans should live like Americans with personal responsibility and self reliance. This is Mother Jones. This is David Corn. They are lefties. They don't like the American idea.

All the drive-by lefties are coming by for this one. And PBJ trying so hard to sound sophisticated. Still.

This one has to be the one that sinks Romney. Has to be. By golly, you've got him cornered this time. He's going to get soundly throttled. Because if we've learned nothing since 1980, it's that Americans love welfare queens and chomp at the bit to vote for candidates who support them.

Reasonable -- Tell us about how "Europe" hasn't had any civil wars since 1861, along with your stereotypes about elderly voters and your hilarious beliefs about Western European architecture that seem to have developed by looking at postcards.

Technically Europe - if you want to say the entire continent combined and leave out the conflicts in hte individual nations - has not had a civil war since 1861 (except for a few minor skirmishes like WWI and WWII, but other than those its been pretty peachy).

I watched Romney's press conference. He said the video was in response to a question about the process of winning the election. Romney urged the person to release the full video to put it into context. I am sure the chances of that are zero.